The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 08-12-2011, 06:28 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: indianapolis, United States
Posts: 212
the queen cant votes, either...can she?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 08-12-2011, 06:29 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by bethaliz6894 View Post
the queen cant votes, either...can she?

No she can't - I should add that to the list.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 08-12-2011, 06:38 AM
Midwestern Mom's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Smalltown, United States
Posts: 133
I read in another thread here that the Queen can leave the country without permission now...George I repealed that rule.


MM
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 08-12-2011, 06:46 AM
Elly C's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worcester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,845
But would she want to be able to do some of these things? Whilst there must be times when she must feel like speaking out & trying to weave some influence, she must be very aware of her unique position of having the right to be consulted & being able to advise - She receives the privy papers/meets with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis. She can also look back on a life that has given her the opportnity to meet the greatest & most influential people over the last couple of generations. It depends on your interpretation of being "controlled". I also think given her vast experience over the years she must have discovered ways to subvert her "containment" if she wants her own way
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 08-12-2011, 06:47 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
...The Queen can't say what she thinks, publicly on any issue.
HM has the PM to do the talking,as is custom in a Constitutional Monarchy.Re-inventing the wheel isn't nessecary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 08-12-2011, 06:51 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwestern Mom View Post
I read in another thread here that the Queen can leave the country without permission now...George I repealed that rule.


MM

What George I asked parliament to repeal - he couldn't do it himself - he didn't have that power - was to repeal the necessity for Parliament to approve the leaving of the kingdom. For parliament to approve it would take a vote of the two houses of parliament.

These days the Queen has to have the consent of the government in the person of the Prime Minister - no debate in parliament - just the PM saying 'yes ma'am you can go to France to go to the races'.

The best example of this was in 1944 when George VI wanted to go to France at the time of the D-Day landings and Churchill refused his request to go - so the King promptly refused permission for Churchill to go - although in the end Churchill certainly did go but I am not sure whether the King did or not - after the beachheads had been secured. They both wanted to go on 6th/7th June and neither would give permission for the other to leave the country in order for them to go to the battlefields.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 08-12-2011, 07:28 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Posts: 4
I think HM is amazing to hav put up with being allowed to do so little for so long and she is a great queen - the monarch may not run the country anymore but we still have to respect her because she is the representative of our country - if ur from the UK of course xx
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 08-12-2011, 07:46 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucien View Post
HM has the PM to do the talking,as is custom in a Constitutional Monarchy.Re-inventing the wheel isn't nessecary.

I am not suggesting that we re-invent the wheel but simply trying to point out that she is less free than any of the people over whom she reigns.

They can all speak their minds, refuse to met someone of whom they don't approve, refuse to visit a country they don't want to, go to a foreign country when they want to, and she simply can't do these things.

I think sometimes people think she has a cushy life but when you look at what limitations there on her day to day living it is a lot.

Unlike the rest of us when we leave work we leave work but she can't - she is The Queen whether on a public appearance or having a cuppa watching TV at night - she is still The Queen and is always treated that way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 08-12-2011, 07:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
She herself has said that she would have liked to be a simply country woman so yes if she had her free choice about a career it wouldn't have been to be The Queen but to be a wife of a country estate owner and have her horses and her dogs.

I was trying to list the the drawbacks, the things she can't do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 08-12-2011, 02:02 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,892
I would think its more a case of she cannot just get up and go to the beach in Spain or jet off to the jungles in Thailand and there's several reasons. One would be security that would be needed to be put in place. Two would be that while the Queen in out of the country, she needs one of her Councillors of State to fill in for her if needed. Three would be someone needs to feed the corgis while she's gone and Four being with a calendar filled way in advance, there would probably be events that she'd need to cancel.

This is interesting in thinking of all the restrictions that would be in place being Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 08-12-2011, 05:06 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Of course there are reasons for the restrictions.

I find it interesting that people are quick to justify the restrictions without actually considering the fact that she has less freedom than any other person living in Britain today so being the reigning monarch takes away a number of the rights that the rest of Britains take for granted.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 11-04-2011, 04:27 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,399
How New Labour gave the Royal family exemption from the Freedom of Information Act - Telegraph
3 November 2011

How New Labour gave the Royal family exemption from the Freedom of Information Act

From the moment the Freedom of Information Bill first passed through Parliament in 1999, Tony Blair’s Labour government was determined to protect the Royal family from the spotlight the resulting Act would shine on public bodies. Under the terms of the Act, which came into force in 2005, the Royal family is exempt from having to release information because it is not regarded as a public authority.

Freedom of Information campaigners have long argued that the exemption is peculiar because the monarchy is central to the UK’s system of government and is funded by the public. The Act provides for royal documents to be released if they pass a public interest test, though even this caveat would have been abolished if Labour had won the 2010 general election, as Gordon Brown had announced plans to scrap it and give the monarchy absolute exemption from the Act.

Environmental matters are covered by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, rather than the Freedom of Information Act, and it was under the EIR that the Duchy of Cornwall was ordered to release information yesterday.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-27-2011, 10:49 PM
Emperor Roku XIV's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere, Canada
Posts: 29
Would one really go unpunished for murdering a Welshman in that city? Would they really have been able to hang Diana? Probably not, because it would look pretty bad...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryKateWilliam View Post
...the monarch may not run the country anymore but we still have to respect her because she is the representative of our country - if ur from the UK of course xx
Or Canada, or any other of her many realms!
__________________
- Supreme Lord and Emperor of the Flood
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 08-06-2012, 11:13 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Some City, United States
Posts: 211
When I clicked on this thread I thought it would be about the actual powers of the Queen.

Boy, was I surprised.....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 08-07-2012, 02:11 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,399
Members who require legal advice should consult a solicitor or lawyer.
This forum is not the place to discuss personal legal issues.
Nor is it the place to casually toss around a few wild defamatory accusations.

It should come as no surprise that the current discussion, if it could be called that, has been removed.

Warren,
Administrator
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 08-07-2012, 05:24 PM
purple_Lulu's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
It should come as no surprise that the current discussion, if it could be called that, has been removed.

Warren,
Administrator
Good job Warren .. that was ... bizarre ...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 09-01-2012, 03:59 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
New Powers for The Queen and Prince Charles?
Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed | UK news | The Guardian

Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed
Information commissioner orders release of guide to how Queen and Prince Charles must be consulted before laws are passed

A little-known power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince of Wales to alter new laws is due to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private. The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it does not harm their private interests. The effects of the bills are explained to the royal household, including the Duchy of Cornwall, discussions ensue and if necessary changes are made to proposed legislation.

A judgment issued last week by the deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, means the Cabinet Office has until 25 September to release the confidential internal manual. It details how the consent of "The Crown and The Duchy of Cornwall" is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. If it fails to do so it could face high court action.

In the past two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills on everything from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007 and 2009 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning. In Charles's case, the little-known power stems from his role as the head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate, which provides his £17m-a-year private income. The Duchy of Cornwall runs farms and industrial property, builds houses and acts as a landlord as well as taking responsibility for large areas of the natural environment in south-west England.

The Ministry of Justice consulted Buckingham Palace in 2008 and 2009 over the detail of the apprenticeships bill and how it would affect the Queen "in her personal capacity". As an employer of 1,200 staff the royal household stood to be affected, along with thousands of other employers. The civil servants wanted to know "Her Majesty's intentions in relation to the bill" before its second reading in the House of Commons.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 09-25-2012, 07:17 AM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
This is very interesting, given the Queen has been scrupulously reluctant to express any views in public that could be considered in any way political.

Quote:
The Queen voiced concerns to the previous government about the inability of UK authorities to arrest Abu Hamza al-Masri, it has emerged.

The BBC's Frank Gardner says the Queen told him she had spoken to a home secretary about the issue.

[...]

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, our correspondent said the Queen had been upset that there was no way to arrest the radical cleric and spoke to the then home secretary to ask why somebody who appeared to be inciting violence and hatred was still at large.

"Like anybody, she was upset that her country and its subjects were being denigrated by this man," said our correspondent, who stressed that the monarch was not lobbying but "merely voicing the views that many have".
BBC News - Abu Hamza concerns raised by Queen

This reminds me of when the Queen visited the London School of Economics in 2008. She stumped the economists there by asking why they didn't see the economic crash coming.

The Queen asks why no one saw the credit crunch coming - Telegraph

It's amazing that it takes an elderly, unelected and privileged woman to ask those in a position of power and influence the kind of difficult questions that they, for some inexplicable reason, failed to ask themselves.

It just goes to show that the Queen is more in touch with the issues that concern her subjects than all the democratically elected so-called 'representatives of the people' put together.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 09-25-2012, 05:55 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
All she has done is ask a question of the appropriate minister and then tell another person she asked that question - believing that she was also talking 'in confidence'.

That she has always done.

The wrong thing here is that a reporter decided to tell the world of that confidential discussion.

The Queen has done nothing wrong. It is her job to ask questions about issues, to be informed, to discuss things etc. She does so in the expectation that those discussions will be confidential so that her political views aren't made public. This question was never meant to be made public.

Like Kate's photos the Queen had a right to expect that the confidentiality or privacy of the conversation would have been kept but it wasn't.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 09-26-2012, 04:52 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post

I also see that the geniuses at 'Republic' are up in arms over the Queen expressing an opinion and questioning government ministers over this. The fact that they think this is something that might somehow make the Queen look bad, shows how divorced from reality they really are.
Some republican commentators seem to be denying the Queen the conventional right to "warn, advice and be consulted", in private. They say she should either not talk at all about politics (in case she interfers too much), or do so in public, so that everyone knows what her views are and what she is saying to the government.

I personnally don't think they are right. If the Queen is forced to disclose her views publicly, it will be hard for her to represent the whole nation, because some will agree, and others won't.

And it would be a pity is she is forbidden to "warn, advice and be consulted" in private : why preventing the prime minister and/or the government to talk to someone who has quite a lot of experience and knowledge, is not afiliated to any party and doesn't pursue any agenda ? It isn't as if they had to listen and follow her advice : they still are the one elected and making decisions.

Plus I am quite sure she uses these rights carefully. If that wasn't the case and she was only talking rubbish or trying to impose her views, prime ministers would have stopped the weekly meetings long ago and she wouldn't be as protected as she is from leaks and breachs of confidence. I think prime ministers and governments are always the ones ultimately in charge, as it should be in any democracy. If they still go and see her, it is because they have something to gain from that.

Of course there is still the issue that she has access to the government only because she is the Queen. Well, that is the whole point of monarchy : the monarch takes his/her legitimacy from history and tradition, and sometimes personal aura. In a republic, the head of state will get his/her legitimacy from something else, usually election. The important point is that he/she must be seen as legitimate by the people of the country, which seems to be definitely the case for EIIR.

I don't think this story will do any harm to the Queen...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ancient laws, british government, british monarchy, constitutional monarchy, elizabeth ii, eugenie, parliament, power, queen elizabeth ii, royal prerogative, royalty


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]